Time To Do The Right Thing–Menands

So, last Sunday was Capital Pride. About 10,000 LGBT people from across the Capital Region gathered to walk in the Pride Parade and then partied in Washington Park for the Pride Festival. Capital Pride has become a fixture in the Capital Region–people, LGBT and straight, wait anxiously each year to celebrate the diversity of our community.

It’s the place for all of us to just be–families, individuals, politicians, by-standers, parade watchers, people of faith, municipal leaders–LGBT or straight. For many, we just can’t imagine June–Pride Month–without Capital Pride. Not that its passé, but it’s just part of the fabric of our community. Just like equal rights, marriage equality, living free from violence, being valued for who we are.

That’s why it’s so strange that on Monday night, I’ll be going to the Menands Village Board meeting to speak in favor of a resolution introduced by Village Trustee Tim Lane to extend domestic partner benefits to all their municipal employees. I’m particularly interested since I live in Menands and just cut my $1,000+ check for my Village taxes.

When Tim called to let me know about the resolution my first response was quiet shock. Really? In this day and age, domestic partner benefits still need to be fought for in a state with full legal protections and the right to marry?

Soon, my quiet shock turned into not-so-quiet dismay when Tim told me there’s opposition to this on the Village board. It seems that Mayor Meg Grenier and Deputy Mayor Mark Lansing are against it. They are hiding behind a smokescreen conjured by Village Attorney, Stephen Rehfuss. He contends that the Village needs to pass a local law to provide domestic partner benefits. I’ve talked to a few folks as has Tim.

First of all, you don’t pass a law to determine employee benefits. Could you imagine what would happen if the State Legislature had to vote on the PEF or CSEA contracts? They’d never be settled.

Second, getting back to the issue at hand–Steve remembers the bill he helped draft as Albany City Attorney way back when to establish a domestic partner registry for the City. Everyone hooted and hollered. All it did, however, was give lesbian and gay couples the ability to register as domestic partners so that there was the official stamp needed to get domestic partner benefits if, and only if, an employer offered them. This happened over a decade ago and it now seems like such an antiquated approach.

And third, CDPHP has told Tim a number of times that the domestic partnership provision is already part of the Village’s health care contract–all the Village needs to do is pass a simple resolution saying it wants to use the provision.

So here we are in Menands sort of going back to the future–in a state where same-sex couples can now marry, Village leaders are tying themselves up in their little homophobic knots to deny domestic partners–gay or straight–the right to health care coverage.

Now I love where I live. It’s tranquil. Village Hall is quick to respond to resident issues like when emergency services are needed or replacing a grinder pump in the middle of a horrendous thunderstorm (which happened to us shortly after we moved here). I gladly pay my taxes. (Yes, I do gladly pay my taxes because I believe living in a civil society that values community services is part of our social contract.) But, I pay my taxes so that Village employees are treated fairly–extending domestic partner benefits, which has become a standard in employee benefits–is an integral part of that fair treatment.

I’ll be down at the Village Board meeting on Monday evening, June 17th. It starts at 7 p.m. in the Village Hall–which is right on Broadway and is attached to the Fire House. Come on down and join me. We can watch democracy in action.

P.S. Thanks to Dan Curtis, the progressive community’s photographer, for the great Capital Pride photos and permission to use them!

2 Responses

It`s not difficult to believe (or stomach, for that matter)that a town so close to the Capitol of New York could be living in the dark ages. The simple fact that some officials are confused about not needing a law to include benefits for domestic partners is concerning. How competent or qualified are they for the positions they hold? For me, the injustice becomes intentional when CDPHP has made the Village of Menands Board aware of the fact that domestic partners are qualified for the same benefits as everyone else on payroll. Yet, with that knowledge on hand, they still refused to pass a resolution for Domestic Partner benefits. Is that NOT a clear case of discrimination? Having the ability and authority to enhance the quality of life for the citizens you have been selected to represent and choosing to block a segment of payroll from the same entitlements as the majority of employees seems prejudicial to me. Two questions immediately come to mind. Was the choice to NOT provide benefits to the Domestic Partners based on prejudice or ignorance? If we are to believe that there was a general sense of ignorance regarding a law needing to be passed for the implementation of these benefits doesn`t that raise concern for the representation that is available to this Board? If it was an act of prejudice, who is responsible? When you are in a position to enhance the quality of life for citizens, whether they be on payroll or otherwise, why would you act in any way other than that which is in the best interest of all citizens? This inaction has affected the quality of life for these employees and their partners. As taxpayers we should be concerned by how many others are affected by this kind of ignorance. Now that the Board and it`s City Officials are now elucidated regarding what`s needed to pass Domestic Partner benefits I sincerely hope they have begun to take action to make those benefits accessible.

Not to raise dead horses but we had discussions leading up to the vote on SSM here in New York pointing out the inadequacies of a “civil union” model vs. full marriage equality. The problem with the former, and under it I include domestic partnerships, is the assumption among the unenlightened that recognition of “non-traditional” unions is optional. We saw this in Vermont, New Jersey and no doubt will see it in other states that have opted for marriage light aka civil unions and domestic partnership “protections”. The other problem I have with insurance is that if I were to enroll in my partners health insurance plan, I will have to pay taxes on the portion of premium payed by his employer. My understanding is that is common practice when insurance companies offer domestic partner coverage? Nice to see you back Libby and by the way…Corey Ellis also attended the Pride Parade and Festival.